Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Wi-Fi Makes Trees Sick, Study Says
11-22-2010, 08:12 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-23-2010, 02:52 AM by yeti.)
Wi-Fi Makes Trees Sick, Study Says
Wi-Fi Makes Trees Sick, Study Says
City trees are becoming sick from wireless radiation from local area networks and mobile phones, according to a European study.

By René Schoemaker , IDG News Nov 19, 2010 9:09 pm

Radiation from Wi-Fi networks is harmful to trees, causing significant variations in growth, as well as bleeding and fissures in the bark, according to a recent study in the Netherlands.

All deciduous trees in the Western world are affected, according to the study by Wageningen University. The city of Alphen aan den Rijn ordered the study five years ago after officials found unexplained abnormalities on trees that couldn't be ascribed to a virus or bacterial infection.

Additional testing found the disease to occur throughout the Western world. In the Netherlands, about 70 percent of all trees in urban areas show the same symptoms, compared with only 10 percent five years ago. Trees in densely forested areas are hardly affected.

Besides the electromagnetic fields created by mobile-phone networks and wireless LANs, ultrafine particles emitted by cars and trucks may also be to blame. These particles are so small they are able to enter the organisms.

The study exposed 20 ash trees to various radiation sources for a period of three months. Trees placed closest to the Wi-Fi radio demonstrated a "lead-like shine" on their leaves that was caused by the dying of the upper and lower epidermis of the leaves. This would eventually result in the death of parts of the leaves. The study also found that Wi-Fi radiation could inhibit the growth of corn cobs.

The researchers urged that further studies were needed to confirm the current results and determine long-term effects of wireless radiation on trees.
“Everything Popular Is Wrong” - Oscar Wilde
11-22-2010, 11:01 PM,
RE: Wi-Fi Makes Trees Sick, Study Says
I can tell you without a doubt that trees are making my WiFi connection sick.
[Image: Signature2.gif]
11-23-2010, 03:26 AM,
RE: Wi-Fi Makes Trees Sick, Study Says
Here is the Google translated summary of the Dutch Study's Conclusions.

Dutch to English translation via Google:

Quote:Trees are affected by electromagnetic radiation
November 19, 2010
Number: N30

Laboratory testing negative impact on plant health.

An initial lab tests of the effects of electromagnetic radiation on the growth of plants, indicates that the radiation might negatively affect the health of plants. He research was done by Wageningen University, part of Wageningen UR. Ash trees in the urban environment are increasingly suffering from growth disturbances were found in a growing cell with so-called WiFi access points discoloration and dieback of leaves changing. Although the effects of multiple radiation sources and several trees were found, the researchers found it desirable to repeat the test and preferably for a longer period and on a larger scale.

Trees in urban areas in recent years show an increasing number of damage such as cracks, bumps, discoloration and various forms of tissue necrosis. In the past, whether these phenomena are caused by biological factors such as pests and diseases. To date, that investigation no clear cause identified.

Wageningen University was commissioned by the municipality of Alphen aan den Rijn how the increasing number of sources of electromagnetic radiation, such as masts, could play a role in the deteriorating health of the trees. It was a growing cell the effect of radiation of known WiFi access points on small Esboompjes investigated.

The notes (subjected trees / leaves?) were exposed for more than three months to six sources of radiation with frequencies ranging from 2412 to 2472 MHz** and a power of 100 mW EIRP at 50 cm distance.

Leaves towards the radiation source during the study showed, after a few months a metallic luster appearance, a discoloration of the leaves that appeared to result in the disappearance of the outer cell layer of the leaves. The metallic luster was followed by desiccation and death of a portion of the leaf.
Translated from

** WiFi exists in the 2401 - 2495 MHz range globally. North American FCC standards keep the frequencies in the first 11 (of 14) channels topping out at 2473 MHz.

Nothing has been done to address the new frequencies that persist due to the new wireless that exists in higher bands of radiation. Like the new 3G (~3.5GHz), 4G and 5G penetration into the EM spectrum.

The 5G Standard pushes it even higher..

Europe (ETSI): 5500-5700 MHz (11 channels)
USA (FCC): 5745-5825 MHz (5 channels)
UK (OFCOM FWA): 5735-5835 MHz (4 channels) with DFS
Africa&Asia (OTHER): 4920-6100 MHz (236 channels, 5 MHz step)

Portable phones are also transmitter receivers - usually in the 2.4 to 8GHz domain. DECT phones are continually transmitting don't keep one in the house. Germany has banned DECT.

Birds can see and choose to avoid the EM cloud over cities altering their migration patterns.

.. and what of the potential effect on humans?

Quote:Alarming report: cell/wifi frequencies and your health
Posted by adamfaragalli
Posted on 04-02-2010

I was in Walgreens last night waiting for traffic to die down when I opened the current issue of GQ magazine. I found an article in it called, Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your Health.

I was disturbed by the science behind the article. I think this is a must read for many of us who are attached to our cell phones, have WiFi networks in home and/or live near high power lines. Time will tell, and probably in the upcoming few years if radio frequencies can in deed harm human DNA. Or, at the least, cause DNA to mutate, causing potential cancer and other health risks.

Sample: Snip-its I found interesting. Please read the full article to get more of the science. I personally find the politics more interesting. After all, the entire wireless business revenue is well into the hundreds of billions a year.

Carl Blackman believes “a decision was made to stop the civilian agencies from looking too deeply into the nonthermal health effects from exposure to EM fields. Scientists who have shown such effects over the years have been silenced, had funding taken away, been laughed at, been called charlatans and con men. The goal was to only let in scientists who would say, ‘We know that microwave ovens can cook meat, and that’s all we need to know.’ ” One veteran EPA physicist, speaking anonymously, told me, “The Department of Defense didn’t like our research because the exposure limits that we might recommend would curtail their activities.”

Here, in the U.S., there’s been very little resistance to the march of the cell towers. In fact, in Congress there’s been almost nothing but support. The Telecommunications Act of 1996—a watershed for the cell-phone industry—was the result, in part, of nearly $50 million in political contributions and lobbying largesse from the telecom industry. The prize in the TCA for telecom companies branching into wireless was a rider known as Section 704, which specifically prohibits citizens and local governments from stopping placement of a cell tower due to health concerns. Section 704 was clear: There could be no litigation to oppose cell towers because the signals make you sick.

When President Bill Clinton signed the TCA into law in February 1996, the rollout of “personal communication services,” marketed as PCS, was in full swing. By the end of the year, telecom companies had paid the federal government more than $8 billion to purchase portions of the microwave-frequency sequence. (According to the FCC, fees paid for allocation of spectrum as of 2009 amounted to $52 billion.) Almost immediately, cell-phone antennas sprang up across the country, appearing on church steeples and apartment buildings, in parks and along highways, on streetlights and clock towers and flagpoles. One industry estimate tallied 19,850 such installations in the U.S. in 1995. Today there are 247,000, most hosting multiple antennas.

Modern society, needless to say, is in the grip of wireless technology. All you have to do to understand this is step outside your door. “It just so happens,” Frey had told me, “that the frequencies and modulations of our cell phones seem to be the frequencies that humans are particularly sensitive to. If we had looked into it a little more, if we had done the real science, we could have allocated spectrums that the body can’t feel. The public should know if they are taking a risk with cell phones. What we’re doing is a grand world experiment without informed consent.”

I pray that the science behind this is wrong. I pray in the long run us who use cell phones everyday, live in our WiFi networks and work in cities engulfed in wireless technology remain healthy. But, there is little doubt that we can do things everyday to help limit our exposure. For example, put your cell phone down instead of carrying it on your hip. Or, don’t live near large power lines, or turn off your WiFi network when it is not needed. Still, living near a town or city will forever expose you to these frequencies. And whether we like it or not, cell phones today are a part of live and a must for business.

-Adam Faragalli

Lots more here on human health effects of cell phone / EM radiation in this thread as well as an aggregated listing of other threads and resources.

Disconnect from The Cell Phone Trap or Fry Your Brain & CNS. Your Choice
There are no others, there is only us.
11-23-2010, 08:26 PM,
RE: Wi-Fi Makes Trees Sick, Study Says
if you only use your wireless network for streaming vid or internet use, no huge files, you should be on the lower band 10mbps wireless b.

wireless A is a closed field em signal and has very little range. its rather nasty as its high speed(5ghz)but not good with matter.
from wiki:

"In theory, 802.11a signals are absorbed more readily by walls and other solid objects in their path due to their smaller wavelength and, as a result, cannot penetrate as far as those of 802.11b"

absorbed readily meaning the signal ends there. in other words almost all signal is converted to something that effects matter. not best pleased about having my dna diddled with. its only useful for wireless comms with something close by, may aswel use a wire.....

wireless B has a range beyond your own home and could theoretically reach 100m if dropped to 1mbps. That sort of signal is the easiest in your local environment, low focus. its also in line with most other devices at 2.4 ghz. microwaves can interfere. bluetooth "can" but ive yet to see it caused significant disturbance by newer bluetooth devices. its not a "new" frequency for your body to cope with.

Wireless G uses a variable signal but. Its more disturbance(bandwidth) along the signal. not steady and prone to cut speeds on the fly too much. the distance of B but the bandwidth of A. yet not nearly as good as either. B is the safest in my estimate and a steady signal. I try and avoid wireless as much as possible. and as its a slow signal and a low bandwidth (10mbps slow?) its the only signal i can assume to be relatively "safe".

The worry alot about households that people have fitted 3 wireless aerials to a router/computer. THIS IS INSANE!!!

This sort of mod is 3 times what these guys thought they could get away with and still hold a signal. 3??

All that interference in such a local area is not good. avoid...

If you wish to avoid the constant interference from the world on the whole. find a granite house. what not to live in if you want to use a mobile phoneSmile granite:

very handy stuff great for diffusing em fields. filled with varied crystals, massive, as in filled up no cavities. very dense.
If i ever get to build my own home ill be using granite.

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Study Confirms Nuclear Reactors Are Toxic to Surrounding Communities mexika 0 260 03-15-2014, 01:09 AM
Last Post: mexika
Tongue Study Shows Monsanto GMO Causes Giant Cancer Tumors CharliePrime 2 398 12-04-2013, 03:16 PM
Last Post: CharliePrime
  Medical Institutions: You are NOT Sick. You Are Crazy! mexika 0 229 07-24-2013, 10:33 PM
Last Post: mexika
  CIA Funding Climate Manipulation Study mexika 0 346 07-17-2013, 11:06 PM
Last Post: mexika
  NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere Defendfreedom 2 772 04-03-2013, 08:14 PM
Last Post: Watchdog
  Study: Fish in Drug-Tainted Water Suffer Reaction Easy Skanking 0 446 02-17-2013, 05:47 AM
Last Post: Easy Skanking
Question Some of the best minds I've found spend time here so I ask,What makes grey hair grey? h3rm35 6 839 09-18-2012, 01:38 PM
Last Post: ToddTraf
  H1N1 vaccine linked to potentially fatal nervous system condition: study TriWooOx 1 492 07-11-2012, 02:09 PM
Last Post: yeti
  Scandal Exposed in Major Study of Autism and Mercury yeti 11 1,882 02-25-2012, 05:50 AM
Last Post: MasterChiefa
  Big Study: Vaccinated Kids 2-5 More Diseases Than Unvaccinated Djones 23 7,103 11-29-2011, 07:42 PM
Last Post: Bull Medicine

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)